344 U.S.

167
73 S.Ct. 191
97 L.Ed. 186

ALISON
v.
UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. STEVENSONCHISLETT, Inc.
Nos. 79, 80.
Argued Nov. 12, 1952.
Decided Dec. 8, 1952.

Mr. Karl E. Weise, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Alison.

Mr. David B. Buerger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Stevenson-Chislett, Ins.
Mr. Hilbert P. Zarky, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The questions in these two income tax cases are so much alike that they can be
treated in one opinion. Both taxpayers had moneys embezzled by trusted agents
and employees. As usual, the defalcations had been going on for many years
before they were discovered. On discovery, efforts were made immediately to
identify the takers and fix the dates and amounts of the thefts. In the Alison
case, No. 79, the books revealed the thief and the precise amounts taken each
year from 1931 to 1940. In No. 80, Stevenson-Chislett, Inc., the cover-up had
been so successful that painstaking investigation failed to reveal who took the
funds or the time when the unascertained person or persons took them. Each
taxpayer claimed a tax deduction for the year the losses were discovered and
their amounts ascertained. The Government objected, claiming that the
deduction should have been taken in each of the prior years during which the
moneys were being surreptitiously taken. In the Stevenson-Chislett case, the
District Court held that the uncertain circumstances of the embezzlement
entitled the taxpayer to take its losses the year the loss was discovered and the
amount ascertained. 98 F.Supp 252. The District Judge decided the other way
in the Alison case and denied her declarations. D.C., 97 F.Supp. 959. His

holding, however, was not in accord with his own views, but was compelled, he
thought, by the Third Circuit's decision in First National Bank of Sharon, Pa. v.
Heiner, 66 F.2d 925. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified to us
the question of deductibility in both cases. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1254(3), 28
U.S.C.A. 1254(3), we ordered the complete records sent up so that we might
decide the entire matters in controversy.
2

Internal Revenue Code, 23(e) and (f), 26 U.S.C.A. 23(e, f), authorize
deductions for '* * * losses sustained during the taxable year * * *.' The
Government reads this section as requiring a taxpayer to take a deduction for
loss from embezzlement in the year in which the theft occurs, even though
inability to discover in time might completely deprive the taxpayer of the
benefit of this statutory deduction. Only at the time the money is stolen, so it is
argued, is a loss 'sustained.' But Treasury practice itself belies this rigid
construction. For more than thirty years the Regulations have provided that 'A
loss from theft or embezzlement occurring in one year and discovered in
another is ordinarily deductible for the year in which sustained.' 26 CFR
29.432. (Emphasis supplied.) Information contained in a letter from the
Commissioner attached as an appendix to the Government's brief cites many
instances in which the Treasury has allowed deductions for embezzlement
losses in years subsequent to those in which the thefts occurred. Apparently the
Department has felt constrained to do this in order to prevent hardships and
injustice. These have been departures from the 'ordinary' rule of attributing
embezzlement losses to the year of theft.

This Treasury practice evidently stems at least in part from the special nature of
the crime of embezzlement. Its essence is secrecy. Taxpayers are usually well
aware of all the circumstances of financial losses for which tax deductions are
allowed. Not so when a trusted adviser or employee steals. For years his crime
may be known only to himself. He may take money planning to return it and he
may return it before there is discovery. Furthermore, the terms embezzlement
and loss are not synonymous. The theft occurs, but whether there is a loss may
remain uncertain. One whose funds have been embezzled may pursue the
wrongdoer and recover his property wholly or in part. See Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404, 66 S.Ct. 546, 90 L.Ed. 752. Events
in the Alison case show the practical value of this right of recovery. A
substantial proportion of the embezzled funds was recovered in 1941, ten years
after the first embezzlement occurred. This recovery alone is ample refutation
of the view that a loss is inevitably 'sustained' at the very time an embezzlement
is committed.

Whether and when a deductible loss results from an embezzlement is a factual

question, a practical one to be decided according to surrounding circumstances.

See Boehm v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 287, 66 S.Ct. 120, 90 L.Ed. 78. An
inflexible rule is not needed; the statute does not compel it. For years the
Treasury has administered the tax law under regulations saying that deductions
shall 'ordinarily' be taken in the year of embezzlement. Ordinarily does not
mean always.
5

We hold that the special factual circumstances found by the District Courts in
both these cases justify deductions under I.R.C. 23(e) and (f) and the longstanding Treasury Regulations applicable to embezzlement losses. See Boston
Consolidated Gas Co. v. Commissioner, 1 Cir., 128 F.2d 473; Gwinn Bros. &
Co. v. Commissioner, 7 T.C. 320. Accordingly, the judgment in No. 79 is
reversed and the judgment in No. 80 is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Judgment in No. 79 reversed and judgment in No. 80 affirmed.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice BURTON dissent.